coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  On 22 October 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Celje District Court seeking the compensation of damages sustained in a car accident.
6.  On 3 September 1998 the first hearing was held.
7.  On 16 September 1998 the first-instance court appointed a medical expert.
8.  On 26 February 1999 the expert opinion was submitted to the first-instance court.
9.  On 3 June 1999 a hearing was held.
10.  On 29 June 1999 the first-instance court appointed a new medical expert.
11.  On 1 September 1999 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.
12.  On 4 November 1999 a hearing was held and the court decided to appoint the third expert.
13.  On 7 February 2000 the expert submitted his opinion.
14.  On 23 March 2000 the court postponed the hearing scheduled for 28 March 2000 on the request of the applicant due to his medical condition.
15.  On 4 May 2000 the first-instance court held the last hearing and delivered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. Both parties appealed.
16. On 17 October 2001 the Celje Higher Court remitted part of the case for re-examination and rejected the remainder of the claim.
17. On 19 December 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the rejected part of his appeal before the second-instance court.
18.  On 10 April 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law and the proceedings at first-instance resumed.
19.  On 9 December 2003 a hearing was held where a decision to amend the expert opinion was taken.
20.  On 1 June 2004, during the last hearing, the first-instance court delivered a judgment. The applicant appealed.
21.  On 14 April 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court rendered a judgment.
5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is currently serving her sentence in Gebze Prison.
6.  On 9 April 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership to MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), an illegal organisation.
7.  On 13 April 2003 she was taken before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge who subsequently ordered her pre-trial detention.
8.  On 23 July 2003 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and eight other persons charging them with attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the State, membership of, or aiding and abetting to an illegal organisation.
9.  Following the abolition of the State Security Courts by Law no. 5190, the criminal proceedings were resumed by the Istanbul Assize Court.
10.  During the proceedings, the Istanbul Assize Court decided to prolong the applicants’ pre-trial detention and rejected her request to be released pending trial a number of times on the basis of the reasonable grounds of suspicion that she had committed the offence, the severity of the criminal charge against her and the state of the evidence in the case file.
11.  At the hearing of 1 April 2009, the Istanbul Assize Court, once more, rejected the applicant’s claim that her detention had been unreasonably lengthy and that she should be released pending trial.
12.  The applicant challenged the above-mentioned decision by lodging an objection with the higher division of the Assize Court.
13.  In the course of the proceedings for the review of her detention, the applicant alleges that neither she nor her lawyer was given an opportunity to make any oral submissions against the lawfulness of her continued detention in a hearing and that they were not notified of the observations submitted by the public prosecutor.
14. On 17 April 2009 the 13th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court rejected the applicant’s objection against the prolongation of her detention, taking into account the nature of the criminal charge and the establishment of reasonable suspicion that she had committed the alleged crime.
15.  On the basis of the evidence before it, on 4 May 2011 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant of attempting to undermine the constitutional order, pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code, and sentenced her to life imprisonment.
16.  According to the latest information provided in the case file, the applicant has lodged an appeal against the judgment with the Court of Cassation, before which the proceedings are currently pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is currently detained in İzmit F‑type prison.
6.  On 6 May 2000 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of a criminal profit-making organisation and carrying out illegal activities on its behalf.
7.  On 8 May 2000 the investigating judge at the İstanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
8.  On 19 June 2000 a bill of indictment was filed against the applicant and four other persons with the İstanbul State Security Court, accusing them of forming a criminal profit-making organisation and of being involved in incidents of murder, extortion and fraud.
9.  On 30 January 2003 the first-instance court acquitted the applicant and the other accused of the former charge on the ground that the mental elements of the crime had not been established on their parts. It followed that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the other charges brought against them and transferred the proceedings to the Kartal Assize Court.
10.  On 20 December 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court, noting that the latter had erroneously acquitted the applicant and his co-accused of the charge concerned. In its decision, the court held that all components of forming a criminal profit-making organisation had been sufficiently established against the accused.
11.  Subsequently, the case was remitted to the first-instance court.
12.  Following the abolition of the State Security Courts by Law no. 5190, the İstanbul Assize Court resumed the criminal proceedings.
13.  During the proceedings, the İstanbul Assize Court reviewed the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention regularly at the end of each hearing or, at the latest, every thirty days, of its own motion, without holding any oral hearing.
14.  At the hearing on 3 March 2010 the İstanbul Assize Court decided, once more, to extend the applicant’s continued detention on account of the reasonable grounds of suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he was charged, and the state of the evidence in the case file.
15.  On 5 January 2011 having regard to the period he had spent in detention, the İstanbul Assize Court released the applicant.
16.  On the basis of the range of evidence in the case file, on 6 December 2011 the İstanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant of a number of crimes; including forming a criminal profit-making organisation, murder, abduction and extortion. Subsequently, the court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment.
17.  According to the information in the case file, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation, before which the proceedings are currently pending.
5.  On 16 July 1999 the Strumica Court of First Instance ordered a certain Mr I.A. to pay a debt established in the first applicant’s favour. On 22 March 2010 the first-instance court stayed the enforcement proceedings since the debtor had died. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.
6.  In the meantime, on 30 April 2009, the first applicant lodged a length complaint with the Supreme Court. On 3 July 2009 the court established that the enforcement proceedings, at that moment, had been pending for ten years before the first-instance court and had not yet ended. The court found that there was a violation of the first applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It set a six-month time-limit for the first-instance court to bring the enforcement proceedings to a conclusion and awarded the first applicant the equivalent of 325 euros (EUR) by way of just satisfaction. In the absence of an appeal, this decision became final on 22 October 2009.
7.  On 30 September 1998 the second applicant sought that the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (“the Fund”) recognise her right to a disability pension. After several remittals ordered by the Government Appeal Commission and the Supreme and Administrative Courts, on 25 November 2009 the Fund accepted the second applicant’s request and acknowledged her right to a disability pension.
8.  In the meantime, on 27 January 2009, the second applicant complained to the Supreme Court that the administrative proceedings had lasted too long and requested compensation. On 23 March 2010 the Supreme Court established that the impugned proceedings, at that time, had lasted for over ten years and awarded her the equivalent of EUR 410 by way of just satisfaction. On 31 May 2010 the second-instance panel of the Supreme Court allowed the second applicant’s appeal and awarded her a higher compensation, the equivalent of which was EUR 980. This sum was paid on 15 September 2010.
9.  On 12 April 2001 the third applicant requested annulment of her dismissal. On 18 September 2007 the Skopje Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision and dismissed her claim. On 22 January 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed on the merits the third applicant’s appeal on points of law (ревизија).
10.  In the meantime, on 8 July 2009, the third applicant complained to the Supreme Court about the length of the labour proceedings. On 29 September 2009 the Supreme Court rejected (отфрла) her claim as having been submitted outside the statutory six-month time-limit, which, in her case, started to run on 18 September 2007. The second-instance panel of the Supreme Court confirmed this decision.
6.  The applicant, Mr Galib Myumyum Emin, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977 and as far as the Court is aware now lives in Bulgaria.
7.  The applicant arrived in the Netherlands in November 2004. He never obtained legal residence. On 21 July 2006 the Minister for Immigration and Integration (Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie) decided to impose an exclusion order (ongewenstverklaring) on the applicant pursuant to the provisions of the Aliens Act 2000 (Vreemdelingenwet 2000) as he had been convicted of a serious criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for three years.
8.  The applicant was released from prison on 5 April 2007. That same day the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie; the successor to the Minister for Immigration and Integration) ordered the applicant to be taken into aliens’ detention (vreemdelingenbewaring) with a view to his expulsion from the Netherlands.
9.  Also on 5 April 2007, the applicant appealed the decision to take him into aliens’ detention to the Regional Court (rechtbank) of The Hague, sitting in ‘s-Hertogenbosch.
10.  The applicant was released from aliens’ detention on 11 April 2007 but informed the Regional Court that he wanted to pursue his appeal in order to obtain compensation. In support of his appeal, the applicant argued inter alia that the exclusion order imposed on him had in the meantime become based on incorrect grounds as Bulgaria had since joined the European Union (“EU”) and the criteria for imposing an exclusion order on EU citizens were more stringent.
11.  On 23 April 2007 the Regional Court upheld the applicant’s appeal. It held that the Deputy Minister had neglected to initiate activities to expel the applicant from the Netherlands while he was still in prison following his criminal conviction. Furthermore, the Regional Court considered that the Deputy Minister had not assessed, at the time the decision was taken to place the applicant in aliens’ detention, whether the criteria in force for imposing an exclusion order applied to the applicant. For these reasons the Regional Court held that the applicant’s aliens’ detention had been unlawful from the outset. The Regional Court however declined to award compensation to the applicant as he had been convicted of a serious criminal offence and an exclusion order had also been imposed on him.
12.  On 25 April 2007 the applicant filed a further appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State) against the decision of the Regional Court not to award him compensation even though his aliens’ detention had been declared unlawful from the start.
13.  On 10 May 2007 the Council declared the appeal inadmissible since, pursuant to article 84 sub d of the Aliens Act 2000, no further appeal lay against a refusal to award compensation.
4.  On 10 April 2006 the applicant company sued a different company for a sum of money before the Bardejov District Court. In May 2006 the applicant company paid the court fee. In July 2006 it modified its claim.
5.  The District Court held the first hearing on 31 October 2006. On 6 December 2006 the defendant company submitted its observations. On 19 November 2007, 17 January 2008 and 15 April 2008 the case was adjourned at the request of the defendant’s representative.
6.  The second hearing was held on 7 May 2008. In June and September 2008 the applicant company asked for the proceedings to be accelerated.
7.  On 2 October 2008 the case was assigned to a different judge. A hearing which was scheduled for 22 January 2009 was adjourned at the request of the defendant’s representative. Another hearing was scheduled for 12 March 2009.
8.  On 9 April 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant company’s request about the duration of the proceedings. It held that, despite a shorter period of inactivity, there had been no significant delays in the proceedings in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent. The decision stated that the applicant company had modified its action, that it had submitted documentary evidence in the course of the proceedings, and that it had also limited the court in scheduling of hearings.
9.  Further hearings before the District Court were held on 8 June 2009 and 9 September 2009. On the latter date it delivered a judgment against which the defendant appealed on 29 October 2009.
10.  The file was submitted to the Prešov Regional Court on 27 November 2009. On 9 February 2010 the court of appeal quashed the first-instance judgment. The decision was served on parties on 24 March 2010.
11.  On 15 July 2010 the applicant asked for the case to be proceeded with. Hearings before the District Court were scheduled for 21 September 2010 and 13 December 2010. They were adjourned at the request of the defendant’s representative.
12.  The District Court heard the parties on 5 April 2011. Subsequently the parties submitted documentary evidence. Another hearing was held on 23 June 2011. In July 2011 and September 2011 the parties submitted further observations and evidence. The District Court scheduled a hearing for 13 December 2011.
13.  On 13 January 2012 the Government informed the Court that the proceedings were pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Kaunas.
6.  The applicant owned a flat together with another person, I.B. On 15 May 2001 the applicant and I.B. disconnected the flat from the central heating system provided by the company “Litesko Ltd.” (hereinafter – Litesko), and signed a contract with an alternative heating provider. On 15 June 2001 the new provider’s heating system was installed in the flat. On 6 August and repeatedly on 17 October 2001 the applicant informed Litesko about the termination of their old agreement. According to the applicant, in the following months they received no bills from the old heating provider. In February 2002, however, Litesko sent a bill for heating to the applicant and I.B.
7.  Following the refusal by the applicant to pay the bill, Litesko filed a civil claim for payment for the period from 1 January 2002 to 1 September 2003.
8.  On 7 June 2004 the Palanga City District Court (hereinafter - the Palanga Court) dismissed the claim by Litesko. The court observed that the owners of the flat were free to choose their heating provider and they had informed the plaintiff about the termination of the agreement and properly disconnected from the heating system. The court concluded that the plaintiff itself had acknowledged that it no longer supplied heating to the flat. It was also established that the applicant together with I.B. and Litesko were no longer in a contractual relationship for heat consumption. The Palanga Court noted that the claim filed by the plaintiff was an unsubstantiated attempt to enrich itself at the expense of the other party.
9.  Litesko missed the time-limit for lodging an appeal and its request to renew it was dismissed. Neither of the parties requested re-opening of the proceedings.
10.  In 2006 Litesko brought a new claim against the applicant and I.B., requesting payment for heating for the period 1 April 2004 to 1 September 2005.
11.  On 20 March 2006 the Kaunas City District Court upheld the claim and awarded Litesko 490 Lithuanian litai (LTL; approximately 142 euros (EUR)) against each of the owners. Having re-interpreted the domestic law, the court ruled that the applicant and I.B. were still in a contractual relationship with Litesko because they had arbitrarily disconnected the heating system and thus they had to pay for the heating. The court found that the 7 June 2004 court decision did not have res judicata effect as the new claim concerned a different period of time, and that this situation was therefore not identical to the one ruled upon earlier by another District Court.
12.  On 20 June 2006 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld the decision, having found that the lower court had correctly assessed all the circumstances of the case and made a reasonable conclusion as to the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties and the supply of heating to the flat.
13.  The applicant did not have the right to lodge a cassation appeal as the amount of the claim was smaller than the minimum required by domestic law for the lodging of such an appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Košice.
5.  On 13 September 1999 the applicant lodged an action with the Košice I District Court in which he claimed distribution of marital property.
6.  On 3 November 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had breached the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It granted 60,000 Slovak korunas (that sum was equivalent to 1,650 euros (EUR) at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction, ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
7.  On 20 January 2010 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had again breached the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the period subsequent to the first judgment of the Constitutional Court. It granted the applicant EUR 1,500 as just satisfaction and ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs. The Constitutional Court confirmed the validity of its order of 3 November 2006 that further delays in the proceedings should be avoided.
8.  On 10 March 2010 the District Court heard an expert. On 15 April 2010 it asked a different expert for additional opinion. It was submitted on 11 October 2010. Between 20 April 2011 and 19 August 2011 the District Court held three hearings and obtained additional evidence. On the last mentioned day the court orally delivered a judgment. On 11 November 2011 the judge instructed the District Court’s registry to have the judgment with reasons served on the parties. On 15 November 2011 the District Court delivered a decision rectifying the judgment of 19 August 2011.
9.  According to the information submitted by the applicant on 24 February 2012 both parties lodged an appeal and the proceedings are pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 31 August 1999 the Budapest and Pest County Regional Pension Insurance Directorate established the applicant’s service years and the amount of his old age pension. The applicant appealed, challenging the amount of service years recognised. The second-instance administrative authority accepted the claim in part on 6 January 2000. This decision was later modified slightly ex officio to the applicant’s advantage on 23 February 2000.
6.  On 13 April 2000 the applicant sought judicial review against the Pension Insurance Directorate’s decision before the Budapest Labour Court. The court dismissed his action on 25 March 2004.
7.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which quashed the Labour Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court on 1 February 2005.
8.  In the resumed proceedings the Labour Court again dismissed the applicant’s action on 16 November 2007. The Supreme Court upheld the first-instance judgment on 24 November 2008, which was served on the applicant on 7 January 2009.
9.  The domestic courts relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of two forensic accountant experts and testimonies of the parties.
4.  The applicants were born on the dates listed in the Annex.
5.  The applicants are employed in the General Hospital of Chalkida.
6.  On 4 July 2000 they lodged an action against the hospital with the First Instance Administrative Court of Chalkida seeking the payment of a premium to their salary, ranging between 840,000 drachmas (approximately 2,465.15 euros) and 3,360,000 drachmas (approximately 9,860.59 euros), plus interest.
7.  On 31 May 2002 a preliminary decision was published asking the applicants to pay the fees required (δικαστικό ένσημο) in order to comply with the procedural rules (decision no. 215/2002).
8.  Following the payment of the fees required, the hearing took place on 12 March 2003.
9.  On 8 October 2003 another preliminary decision was published asking the applicants to submit supplementary evidence regarding their allegations (judgment no. 570/2002).
10.  Subsequently, a hearing took place on 7 June 2006 and by judgment dated 25 June 2007 the First Instance Administrative Court of Chalkida partially accepted their action (judgment no. 305/2007).
11.  On 3 November 2007 the hospital lodged an appeal.
12.  On 3 July 2009 the Piraeus Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and upheld the First Instance court’s decision (judgment no. 1321/2009).
13.  The applicants were served with the decision on 19 October 2009.